Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.
Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).
Please dont grave dig 4 year old topics. Its looked down upon by some members of these boards.
------------------ Links: (url="http://"http://forum.cjb.net:81/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?forum=unrealslair")Unreals Fourms(/url) (url="http://"http://www.unrealslair.cjb.net/")Unreals Lair(/url) (url="http://"mailto:unrealslair@unrealslair.cjb.net")mailto:unrealslair@unrealslair.cjb.net(/url)unrealslair@unrealslair.cjb.net
Quote
Originally posted by mamajama: **(snip) **
Wow, dude... I mean, this topic was started before Nova was released (notice pipeline's future tense when referring to Nova), but it could be valid in reference to the new game. In that case, you should probably start a new topic with a redux of the original question updated for the times and a reference to the old topic.
Matrix
------------------ "Interestingly, according to modern astronomers, space is finite. This is a very comforting thought -- particularly for people who can never remember where they have left things." - Woody Allen
(url="http://"http://htf.mondominishows.com/valentine/main.asp?seed=7375&serial;=214877")The funniest valentine I've ever gotten.(/url)
(This message has been edited by what_is_the_matrix (edited 03-28-2004).)
Crap. Just saw the date of original post
Originally posted by Martin Turner: **What are your feelings on EV/O as science fiction?
This is what I think SF is: stories that revolve some how around science or the person of the scientist (or maybe the technologist).
Stuff which is just about space and galactic conquest isn't (in my view) necessarily science-fiction. There was an old derisory term in the SF community: space opera. **
I like the term Harlan Ellison applies to his work: Speculative Fiction. A great deal of what is called SciFi is either horror, science fantasy or speculative fiction.
Few people have done good, hard SciFi. Hal Clement and Jules Verne come to mind as hard scifi writers.
So, EV/O/N is firmly in the science fantasy category.
-STH
------------------ "Create enigmas, not explanations." -Robert Smithson
(This message has been edited by seant (edited 03-29-2004).)
Originally posted by mamajama: **Interesting topic. I originally searched to see when/ if Mr. Turner will release a new Frozen Heart TC, (Que pasa, Mr. T?) but found myself pondering the questions raised. Here are my ponderings, for what they're worth.
2)The best stories to me are those that mix the elements of space opera ( the grand questions of love, life, death, war and peace, tolerance, compassion, etc) with elements of scientific speculation. I guess you'd call it "possible" science on a level 2 with someone's taxonomy above.
"Impossible" is such a relative term, however. Most of the way we live today would be considered impossible, probably satanic magic by any human living a millenia or so ago.
I agree with the derision of techno-babble. To make a sci-fi story compelling to me, there should be at least an attempt to incorporate speculation about how emerging technologies would play out in the universe. Right now, the discoveries about alternate universes, the preponderance of unexplainable dark matter, folded dimensions, and other outlandish notions inspire such a wealth of speculation that speculative fiction is the best place (outside of a doctorate and a well-equipped lab with supercomputers) to explore these "possibilities".
I don't develop software or science, I occasionally develop stories. Therefore, I am most qualified, unfortunately, in the "space opera" field of endeavor; however, I keep striving for credibility.
mj
**
**Interestingly enough, I didn't notice the date myself and was reading the topic, then I noticed my own post 4 years ago... It's a good topic, regardless of how old it is. I'd just caution against grave digging in the future, because more often than not it just confuses people.
_bomb
------------------
Re the term 'speculative fiction', Oxford University refused to allow the inauguration of a 'Science Fiction Society' as an officially recognised body. The founders were forced to adopt the more erudite title 'Speculative Fiction Society'. Of course, this may have all changed since 1988.
------------------ M A R T I N T U R N E R (url="http://"http://www.AmbrosiaSW.com/cgi-bin/vftp/show.pl?product=evo&category;=plugins&display;=downloads&file;=FrozenHeart104.sit.bin")Frozen Heart(/url) (url="http://"http://www.AmbrosiaSW.com/cgi-bin/vftp/show.pl?product=evo&category;=plugins&display;=downloads&file;=FemmeFatale.sea.bin")Femme Fatale(/url) (url="http://"http://www.ambrosiasw.com/cgi-bin/vftp/dl-redirect.pl?path=evo/plugins&file;=Frozen Heart - the No.hqx")Frozen Heart - the Novel(/url)
Originally posted by Bomb: **I'd just caution against grave digging in the future, because more often than not it just confuses people. _bomb **
Ah, that explains why people were talking about Nova in the future tense, and why this is here rather than the Nova board. About the plot of Star Wars moving into darkness and tragedy, it is not the end. By this I mean, the first three movies will be before the original Star Wars. So after you watch those and get all depressed about how bad everything is, you can just keep watching and soon the galaxy will have a Rebellion and the return of the Jedi. Then you can start reading the books by other authors and see how much the galaxy continues to change. Just because 1-3 will get progressively darker doesn't mean that they are the end. There will probably be a supr-dooper digitally remastered 4-6 so that...more money can be made.
------------------ Support USA Patriot Act let real Americans take away our rights before those darn foreigners can try. All the problems of the world can be solved by good parents and good water. Depression was depressing, but insanity, now that's something I can get really get into! "And in this their similarities diverged"
That also explains why Mr. Turner was referring to EV/O rather than EV/O/N...
Funnily enough, I did the same thing as Bomb. Then I though: "you know what? It seems a little odd that he could get so many responses so quickly, and some of these people don't even come to the Dev Corner. Did Martin make another topic on the EVO board referring to this one? Why did he refer to EV/O rather than EV/O/N?" Then I wondered for a moment if it was a gravedig. Sure enough, the topic is 4 years old.
------------------ The programmer's code of entomology: there's always another bug. Windows users: stop asking for plugins. (url="http://"http://www.aznt.com/EVN/EVNEW/")Make one yourself.(/url) (url="http://"http://www.cwssoftware.com")Sephil Saga Website(/url) (url="http://"http://www.evula.org/infernostudios/search.html")Add-ons Search Engine(/url)
Gravedig or not, this is an interesting topic.
Science Fiction is actually a division of speculative fiction, which basically is a blanket term under which any fiction in which the book explores the future, past of present in a way that does not reflect our current understanding is named. Basically, 1984 was speculative, but not sf. Fahrenheit 451 was speculative, but not sf. Jennifer government was speculative but DEFINITELY not sf. Science fiction is a piece of fiction where technology that is more advanced than our own plays an integral part in the plot, generally in setting and storyline. space opera is a joking term which refers to the old 1940s tales of intergalactic empires with governors called Gorthax or something which ruled the world. The setting of space opera is like asimov's pebble in the sky, about a man who travels in time to the Galactic Empire. Asimov made a great book here, without the cheesiness associated with sosf, so space opera is not necessarily bad, simply different. It is likened in setting to a melodrama.
After writing 25000 words of my own novel, I find that sf is really a blanket term as well. There are so many things that you can do that it is practically infinite in possibility. EVN created a setting and story that dealt with galactic empires but focused on the individual in its all-to-short strings and gameplay. Hence I would say that EVN is sf, lighthearted and fun, but not sosf. If anything, it could use a bit more 'hard' sf in my opinion, not mindless verbosity but a real focus on technology's impact on the life of a character and the story. Just my two cents.
------------------ Captain Mephistopheles
Interesting.
Why do you say that Science Fiction is a branch of Speculative Fiction?
1984 occupies some odd ground, because it is Science Fiction in the sense that the means of repression (the telescreen for example) are technological. On the other hand, it is surely not 'speculative', because Orwell was simply transposing Soviet communism in 1948 into a British context. It's a political fable, like Animal Farm. Angus Wilson's 'The old men at the zoo' is probably more speculative, in the sense that he draws a line of how we get there from here. On the other hand, it does revolve around the person of the scientist.
Fahrenheit 451, though, is surely Science Fiction it's Bradbury's greatest claim to fame, and Bradbury was (then at least) one of the pre-eminent SF writers. The turning point of the novel, which, unusually for a novel (although common in short stories) is at the end, is science-based - the notion that all that Guy Montag ever read can be recovered through memory techniques.
John Campbell Jnr once defined Science Fiction as 'anything which Science Fiction editors will publish'. I think there's a lot of mileage in defining the movement in its own terms. We can look back and say that, for example, the Foundation Trilogy was a pinnacle reached early on in the Golden Age, while admitting that the (then) equally popular Lensman series was just grand space opera (although still clearly within the Science Fiction tent). William Golding's 'the Inheritors' is, imho, science-fiction whereas 'Lord of the Flies' could be referred to as speculative fiction (it posits a future war) but is really an answer to the triteness of 'The Coral Island'.
I'm not really sure that the term 'Speculative Fiction' gets us very far, except as a derogatory term to distinguish it from higher literary pursuits (which is, I'm sure, not how you meant it).
If you want to limit 'Science Fiction' to only stories where technology more advanced than our own play an integral part, then you are excluding a very large bulk of what has traditionally been seen as Science Fiction. A lot of SF writing is purposely set either in the past (for example, William Gibson's 'The Difference Engine') or in a future where mankind has degenerated technologically (for example, Ursula K LeGuin's 'Always Coming Home'), or in the present or near future where the implications of technology available today are explored in a different way (Philip K Dick's finest novel, 'A Scanner Darkly').
At the same time, the term 'Speculative Fiction' as you define it could be taken to include Harry Potter and the Narnia books. In both series, the authors make a good case for why the world we know really does connect to the world of the book, except we never noticed it.
i say that sf is a branch of speculative fiction becase, technically, it is. (url="http://"http://www.sfwa.org")www.sfwa.org(/url) (i think it's org, could be net or com). Technically, sf is any story in which high tech plays an important part. A post-apocalyptic world where high tech was the reason still is sf, as long as tech has a continuing prescence in the novel. For example in 'A Canticle for Liebowitz', it is the far future after a nuclear war, when humanity is primitive and medieval. Technically it is speculative and not science fiction. That changed at the end when humanity once again gains high tech and destroys itself, but you get the point. officially, spec. fict. is any fiction that is, well, speculative. sf is definitely speculative, even if sometimes radically so. fahrenheit 451 was not a sf book because it did not revolve around technology, it revolved around making a point, a political one. If anything, it should be called 'speculative political fiction', with a dash of sf thrown in. the memory techniques described are strictly human, not science based. They are, if anything, evolutionarily based, as they already, theoretically reside in our heads.
I do not exclude the bulk of sf by setting these guidelines. simply ask yourself a couple of questions to find out if something is sf (at least my opinion, and the opinion of the institution (though the institution never ends up knowing about anything, right?)). One: does it incorporate in some way advanced technology? Two: does the story use this technology as essential to it, aka can the book not proceed without this advanced technology (technology also including aliens, alternate realities, theoretical natural phenomena)? if yes to both, then the book is sf.
in the dictionary: science fiction -- (literary fantasy involving the imagined impact of science on society)
I once read an essay written by asimov that said the same thing. It is of cource a topic of great debate (I hope you will, I love a good discussion)
As far as Harry potter and Narnia go, they are fantasy, which is also a sub class of spec.fict.. It is separate from science fiction, where the science has to be a part of the fiction.
Originally posted by omeomi: **i say that sf is a branch of speculative fiction becase, technically, it is. www.sfwa.org (i think it's org, could be net or com). Technically, sf is any story in which high tech plays an important part. **
This notion of 'technically' and 'officially' disturbs me. Who defines the terms? There certainly isn't an international body like the UN which defines literary terms.
The web-site you refer to doesn't seem to endorse the term 'speculative fiction'. In the article: (url="http://"http://www.sfwa.org/misc/skiffy.htm")http://www.sfwa.org/misc/skiffy.htm(/url) the author makes an ironic reference to the term 'speculative fiction' as if it's part of the politically correct atmosphere we all detest so much. The responses from others including Damon Knight don't refer to 'speculative fiction' at all.
The site definitely does not subscribe to the idea that science fiction. Instead they say "It is hard to apply any one definition to everything that is called science fiction or fantasy. From Huxley to Heinlein, from Asimov to McCaffrey to Twain to Zelazny, fine writers have demonstrated that science fiction and fantasy are "genres" that are not constrained by conventions and formulas. They are as open as the speculating human mind."
BTW, which dictionary did you look up 'science-fiction' in? The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as "fiction based on imagined future scientific discoveries or environmental changes, frequently dealing with space travel, life on other planets, etc." On this basis, both 1984 and Fahrenheit 451 would qualify because they are based on environmental changes, as would stories about future degeneration.
Encyclopedia Brittanica defines it as: "form of fiction that developed in the 20th century and deals principally with the impact of actual or imagined science upon society or individuals. The term is more generally used to refer to any literary fantasy that includes a scientific factor as an essential orienting component.
Such literature may consist of a careful and informed extrapolation of scientific facts and principles, or it may range into far-fetched areas flatly contradictory of such facts and principles. In either case, plausibility based on science is a requisite, so that such precursors of the genre as Mary Shelley's Gothic novel Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus (1818) and Robert Louis Stevenson's Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1886) are science fiction, whereas Bram Stoker's Dracula (1897), based as it is purely on the supernatural, is not."
Notice that neither of these two (the world's premiere dictionary, the world's premiere encyclopedia) use the term 'speculative fiction' when referring to SF.
I kind of like the 'plausibility based on science' notion as the touch-stone. This would take on board 'The Inheritors' and all of the SF set in the past.
Another way of looking at it would be to have a browse through Asimov's collection called 'Before the Golden Age', which brings together the best of SF while the genre was still getting its act together.
A final thought: the notion of 'non-speculative fiction' is a relatively recent one. Before 1719 you will find very little in the way of narrative accounts which do not have an element of the supernatural, although you would find nothing that qualifies as 'science-fiction'. Naturalistic serious writing (non-speculative fiction) really begins with Daniel Defoe's 'Robinson Crusoe', although even this is thoroughly speculative. Interestingly, there is a much longer history of comic non-supernatural writing, going back as far as Plautus (Pseudolus, the Swaggering Soldier).
For all these reasons, I'm not a big fan of the term 'speculative fiction'. I think Oxford University was being pompous by insisting that the term was used for a society in preference to 'science fiction'. Certainly when I was studying English at that same institution, we quite happily referred to 'The Inheritors' as science-fiction and Sir Gawayne and the Grene Knight as a 'romance', without having to suggest that they both belonged to the same category of writing.
Originally posted by omeomi: **Gravedig or not, this is an interesting topic.
Science fiction is a piece of fiction where technology that is more advanced than our own plays an integral part in the plot, generally in setting and storyline. **
I'd always assumed the science fiction was a work of fiction in which the science was sound. In that sense, alternate history books could be science fiction (I'm thinking of "Guns of the South" by Harry Turtledove). Maybe it would be more accurate to define science fiction as a piece of fiction in which the technology featured is more advanced/alien to the setting/culture?
Martin, let me just say that I covet your classical education. It makes me want to move to Europe when I have a child just to ensure that they'd understand things like (url="http://"http://www.csh.rit.edu/~diablo/gdt/archives/volume5/4/vis.shtml")http://www.csh.rit.e...me5/4/vis.shtml(/url)
(This message has been edited by seant (edited 04-02-2004).)
I am sorry if I wasn't clear (I'm a little out of it). When I was referring to speculative fiction, i was partly quoting the official standard and partly my own opinions. Speculative fiction is only an umbrella, a domain versus a kingdom (to use zoological classification). Any fiction that deals with something other than an easily believable setting (aka detective story in New York not speculative) is simply non-speculative. I do find all of these classifications a little excessive, but to me it does make a certain amount of sense.
As for the 'science' in science fiction, as all the dictionaries stated (got mine from an online dictionary, forget which but it was reasonably reputable), science fiction does require science to be a part of the story, dealing with either more advanced environments (technologically, like living on a star, not three years in the future) and/or dealing with technological advances. By technological advances I mean that a more advanced technology is an essential part of the story. I believe that any story that fits either of those criteria is science fiction. This makes it also speculative fiction, but still science fiction. The story is not lessened by being further classified. The whole debacle was simply a vague attempt to define the genre, which considering its near-infinite possibilities is futile.
Therefore I believe that all science fiction is speculative fiction. I could call it speculative fiction and be right. I could also call it science fiction and be right. Fahrenheit 451, I still believe was not science fiction. True, science was incorporated into the environment but (this is how i separate sf from specf) if one removed the heightened technology (or otherworldly environment), the story would stil work. The real core of that story was political, not scientific. If the Hound was replaced by assassins the essential plot would remain the same. What I believe the author was trying to express was a social view of the near future, not a technological one (just an insertion here; I find his ideas of the future frighteningly close to where I see the world going). Hence I would term it political fiction, but that is only my view. In the end, the classifications are personal, not global, and open to interpretation. Hey, I'm only a kid, make your own rules.
Also, when I talked about 'future technology', I used that as a term to define technology more advanced than our own. An alternate past (or our own, you never do know for sure) that has higher tech in its core is still sf.
That would, I hope explain your 'Dracula' section. As science needs to be the key, not the supernatural, fantasy is not science fiction. Fantasy is, however speculative fiction. You might find this website ( (url="http://"http://onegeek.org/~tom/classes/sf/sf.html")http://onegeek.org/~...sses/sf/sf.html(/url) ) to be useful in defining sf and specf. Check the hyperlinks in that page, very interesting. In conclusion, you can classify something as much as you want, but it is what you have written that matters. You can write apocalyptic-hard-political-science-speculative fiction, but it is all superficial and dependent on personal views. You have seen my views (if you want clarification please go ahead and ask), and if they do not necessarily agree with your own then good! Individualism is what makes us human.
Cheers.
Actually, I was questioning what you meant by an 'official' view. The fact that someone puts something on a website doesn't make it 'official'. As far as I know (and I do have a degree in it) there are no 'official' classifications in literature. As a critic, you are free to make your own.
Quoting Brittanica and the OED was therefore, a little tongue in cheek on my part.
I would draw, though, an important distinction between techno-fiction and science-fiction. Science-fiction can be about technology far less advanced than ours, as long as there is a science element on which the plot turns. A marvellous example of this is 'The Snowball Effect' in the Penguin Science Fiction Omnibus (Aldiss ed). Equally, the Endochronic Properties of Resublimated Thiotomolene (Early Asimov) is an SF spoof, not any other kind of literature. On the other hand, James Bond is not SF, even though it frequently incorporates technology far more advanced than anything which exists in the real world. Neither is Futurama - although there are many future fiction jokes, the plot never turns on scientific principles, reasoning or discoveries.
One of the most classic SF stories is 'Nightfall'. It is deliberately based on a planet where technology is significantly behind ours. However, the premise is directly from astronomy - imagining what science would be like on a world orbiting in a multi-star system. This would not qualify as SF under your definition, but is in fact one of the defining examples of the genre.
I want to return to my point about non-speculative fiction. 'Naturalistic' writing is really a Western nineteenth and twentieth century phenomenum. The premiere league of naturalistic writing is to be found in the works of Emile Zola and the other French naturalists. Unfortunately, as someone once pointed out, they read more like case histories than novels. Aside from the fact that the stories were made up, they had little to recommend them as 'fiction'.
Some randomly picked 'speculative' works of fiction from the ages: Gilgamesh epic (Gilgamesh goes in search of immortality after the death of Enki-Du) Odyssey (Odysseus gets stranded with the nymph Calypso for almost ten years on his way home to Ithaca) Orestaia (Orestes falls foul of the Furies until Athena sorts it all out) Oedipus the King (Oedipus unwittingly falls foul of fate by killing his father and marrying his mother) Metamorphoses (All kinds of changes, but notably the early solar expedition Daedalus and Icarus) Consolation of Philosophy (Poor Boethius is on the point of giving up, until Philosophy comes to comfort him) Beowulf (kind of like Buffy, but male and Gothic - or maybe Danish, written in easy Anglo Saxon) Volsungasaga (Never accept rings from strangers Sigurd kills the dragon but gets the wrong girl) History of the Kings of Britain (not really history, the most important king is Arthur) Yvain (more of that cool Arthur stuff. Read the write up in Auerbach's 'Mimesis') Sir Gawayne and the Green Knight (Easily the best Arthur story - but, deep down, what does it really mean?) The Decamaron (Loads of the most speculative stories you'll ever find) Olafrtryggvassonssaga (Includes the only account of the devil dragging someone to hell through the toilet seat) Inferno (Speculation gone for a hellish ride) The Book of the Duchess (Chaucer can't sleep, until he tries Morpheus) Morte D'Arthur (sometimes tedious, sometimes brilliant, always impossible) Faerie Queen (political allegory runs wild) Hamlet (there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio) Dr Faustus (plot still in use by - well, pretty much everyone) Paradise Lost (speculating - was the Devil such a bad bloke?) Gulliver's Travels (if you go travelling, make sure you get the scale right) Arabian Nights (translated into English - every wild thing you can put into a story) Wuthering Heights (all seems kind of normal, until the other side starts to break through) Tales of Mystery and Imagination (Poe's dark world, sinister, mysterious, sometimes just plain odd) Tanglewood Tales (Hawthorne rediscovers the Greek myths for a new generation) Through the Looking Glass (early SF? A mathematical experiment if ever there was one) 20,000 Leagues under the sea (and all that French stuff) The Time Machine (Hard Core SF begins to take shape) The Lost World (Conan Doyle eventually speculates himself into the totally bizarre, but this one is ok) The Prisoner of Zenda (genetic throwbacks are blamed for this unlikely doppelganger story) The Phoenix and the Carpet (nothing could be further from HG Wells and Conan Doyle) Peter Pan (Don't delve into this one too much. Barrie rewrote it more than fifty times and published all of them) The Secret Agent (early spy stuff, but Conrad has never yet been beaten) Mr Standfast (Buchan ventures into the supernatural - maybe) The Hobbit (appears from nowhere - well, ok, ideas lifted from all over the place) The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (speculative as they come, but the lost time idea is a classic) The Lord of the Rings (actually, in what sense is this speculative? It has no connection with our world at all)
You say: One of the most classic SF stories is 'Nightfall'. It is deliberately based on a planet where technology is significantly behind ours. However, the premise is directly from astronomy - imagining what science would be like on a world orbiting in a multi-star system. This would not qualify as SF under your definition, but is in fact one of the defining examples of the genre.
I said: As for the 'science' in science fiction, as all the dictionaries stated (got mine from an online dictionary, forget which but it was reasonably reputable), science fiction does require science to be a part of the story, dealing with either more advanced environments (technologically, like living on a star, not three years in the future) and/or dealing with technological advances. By technological advances I mean that a more advanced technology is an essential part of the story. I believe that any story that fits either of those criteria is science fiction. This makes it also speculative fiction, but still science fiction. The story is not lessened by being further classified. The whole debacle was simply a vague attempt to define the genre, which considering its near-infinite possibilities is futile.
I fail to see how Nightfall contradicted my statement. It is on an otherworldly world. Please clarify. I agree with the speculative fiction. An interesting way I heard spaculative fiction described is what occurs when someone writes a book with one of those 'what if...?' questions in mind. Then The Lord of the Rings would qualify. 'What if Britain in the past was full of warring mystical creatures, like elves and people and evil warlords?' What do you think of that?
PS: Good job on the Oxford degree. That carries weight worldwide, probably for a reason.
What I'm quibbling with is the notion of a 'more advanced' environment. Nightfall is about a world with a less advanced environment. Technologically they are not that dissimilar from Asimov's own time of writing, but their science is three hundred years behind ours, because they've only just elucidated the principle of gravitation.
Perhaps you are correct, and sf doesn't necessarily require more advanced technology but simply different technology central to the story. However, thinking what would happen if nightfall was on Earth with past technology, it's not sf at all, it's specf. Past technology is fine as long as the environment is different, and the same environment is fine as long as the technology is different. Both being different is acceptable. A world with two suns sounds quite different, exploring the scientific differences between our own and nightfall's as a basis for the story.
Now that this thread has been officially exhumed....
I find the most rational writer on the subject of definitions of the genre to be Brian Aldiss ("Billion-Year Spree," et al), even though he still provokes profound disagreement from fellow members of the (perhaps mis-named) SFWA.
For all practical purposes, the genre or catagory of a book or film is where the bookstore or video rental place racks it. Pern books go into the Fantasy racks, Bradbury is stuck randomly in SF or, often, horror, and Vonnegutt is hustled over to the "serious literature" section (leaving the poor clerk to wonder WHAT to do with "Venus on the Half-Shell.") The boundaries are far too fluid to be able to establish firm rules as to what is or is not science fiction. Indeed, I have yet to see a definition for science fiction that couldn't be "broken" by a selected work.
I prefer to look at this as a continuum. To continue the life-sciences metaphor used above, elements and approuches could be considered alleles; Star Wars contains elements of a future technology, offset by a lack of scientific plausibility, it includes a speculative element but the emotional core is rooted in the fairy-tale; in all we might not be able to call the hair blond but she is certainly lighter than many of her sisters; aka, more like science fiction than "The Spy Who Loved Me" though less like science fiction than "Contact."
Personally, I like to expand on one part of Aldiss's central argument, and state that the strongest litmus test for "science" fiction is not technology or era per se, but the presense of scientific method. In the pure vein of science fiction, data is presented, hypothesis are made and tested -- by the writer, by a depicted society, by the protagonists.
The Foundation novels pass because they are an attempted extrapolation of some (admitadly questionable) ideas. Star Wars fails because it merely presents a setting, with no attempt to explain or explore how it got there technologically or socially. "The Black Hole" fails because it begins with what appears to be a scientific premise but turns out not to be based on present (or apparently, ANY,) knowledge. Harry Potter, oddly enough, camps on the doorstep; because of a strong thread of logic and an air of skeptical enquiry that informs the books. Harry does not "trust your feelings, Luke"; he collects data, makes hypothesis and explores them, and the world he lives in does not arbitrarily change the rules to advance the plot.
The biggest loophole in my thumbnail definition is that it includes Agatha Christie and James D. MacDonald (not to say this is ever a BAD thing.) It could also plausibly contain alternate history, historical fiction, and scientific papers.
Pinning down Space Opera is even more notorious. Essentially, though, something becomes space opera because it aspires to be. Like opera, it has conventions that can not be considered "good" or "bad," but can only be considered necessary if you want to be Opera, not "comic opera" or "light opera" or "operatta" or "American Musical." But let me quote directly from Aldiss...
"Science fiction is a big muscular horny creature, with a mass of bristing antennae and proprioceptors on its skull. It has a small sister, a gentle creature with red lips and a dash of stardust in her hair. Her name is Space Opera...
"...Ideally, the Earth must be in peril, there must be a quest and a man to match the mighty hour. That man must confront aliens and exotic creatures. Space must flow past the ports like wine from a pitcher. Blood must run down the palace steps, and Ships launch out into the louring dark. There must be a woman fairer than the skies and a villian darker than the Black Hole. And all must come right in the end."
To sum up; the base structure of EV is more science-fictional than not but it needs a push to be either hard science fiction or space opera. It more than anything is reminiscent of the "Solar Queen" novels by Andre Norton and the "Commodore Grimes" stories of A. Betram Chandler. Martin, I salute you for bringing in the depth and emotion to coax a true space opera out of the beast. It would be a noble experiment to try to do the same for hard science fiction. Just adding scientifically accurate mission texts wouldn't do it. Somehow, the plotting would have to permit extrapolation and change, test and hypothesis. Perhaps some Beowulf Schaeffer situations could do the trick? (The Puppeteers have asked you to go to the neutron star at RC 3824, and find out what killed the previous expedition...)
------------------ "As a weapon of war it leaves much to be desired; but as a spectacle it takes much beating." -- a General observing the disastrous test of the JATO-assisted "jumping" tank.
I both agree and disagree. I believe that Star Wars is science fiction, simply not hard sf. Your definition seems to lead far more towards hard sf than not when you are stating exceptions and then does an about face towards simply describing it as anything other than our world that is not historical. I do agree in some cases but not in others. Your description of sf as, more of less, anything that is not historical, present day or non fiction seems a little extreme. It also coincides with my definition of specf, pretty much the same thing. In my opinion (little though it matters), sf must still contain either futuristic technology and/or world (world being things such as a different planet, etc). The technology doesn't have to be believable (that's hard sf, really, where the sole point of the book is showing off tech), just have technology. Hence star wars would count. So, my personal definition (of course to be revised in my head as soon as I have sent this message):
Science Fiction is fiction involving science or science settings unlike our own. Science, either in technology or setting must in some way be integral to the story. The more advanced state of technology (not necessarily at the time in the book, only playing an essential part in the story) must exist. The setting must be otherworldly (otherworldly meaning drastically different, like another planet, another species, an alternate history (in some way involving science), a wormhole, etc).
That's kind of what I am getting at, I'm finding this very hard to put into words. Star Wars would not violate this as technology plays an essential role, both in machines and worlds.
As I am sure that someone will soon find an example to destroy this, please, go ahead and find flaws in my definition, but please recommend corrections.
------------------ 'truly, if there is evil in the world, it lies in the heart of mankind.' -Edaward Morrison
This thread has been a most interesting read, especially since it started four years ago, but is still relevant. Unfortunately, I can't add much to the discussion of categorization, but I do have a question that may provide some interesting fodder. I'm sure it's impossible for anyone with their own project to read this and not wonder where it falls, but I think mine is a particularly difficult beast to pin down. As some may remember, the tech in Sephil Saga is about as close to reality as the EVN engine allows. The weapons and travel concepts are all derived from hard science fiction, and the propulsion systems are all outgrowths of current experimental technology. As much as possible, physics have been taken into account and simulated- there is no techno-babble (there are giant robots, though. Poetic licence). The setting was logically created given certain storyline elements; again, an element of hard sci-fi. But the problem is that the tech is more background info than a plot device. The plots are all primarily political, dipping into the supernatural. They are stories of power and betrayal, conspiracy, love, suffering, Man and God, etc. Definately more in line with what seems to be the predominant definition of Space Opera.
More than "what would you call it?", my real question is where can you draw the line? What takes precedence, plot or setting? Right now, I'm thinking of SS as being more like Star Wars with a hard sci-fi setting. But as the biggest point of distinction for Star Wars seems to be it's lack of hard science in the setting. What SS is or is not is not so interesting to me as my preceding questions. How would you distinguish an example such as this?
------------------ ~Charlie Sephil Saga Homepage: (url="http://"http://www.cwssoftware.com")www.cwssoftware.com(/url)